I am Forbes' Opinion Editor. I am a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, and the author of How Medicaid Fails the Poor (Encounter, 2013). In 2012, I served as a health care policy advisor to Mitt Romney. To contact me, click here. To receive a weekly e-mail digest of articles from The Apothecary, sign up here, or you can subscribe to The Apothecary’s RSS feed or my Twitter feed. In addition to my Forbes blog, I write on health care, fiscal matters, finance, and other policy issues for National Review. My work has also appeared in National Affairs, USA Today, The Atlantic, and other publications. I've appeared on television, including on MSNBC, CNBC, HBO, Fox News, and Fox Business. For an archive of my writing prior to February 2011, please visit avikroy.org. Professionally, I'm the founder of Roy Healthcare Research, an investment and policy research firm. In this role, I serve as a paid advisor to health care investors and industry stakeholders. Previously, I worked as an analyst and portfolio manager at J.P. Morgan, Bain Capital, and other firms.

Quinnipiac University is out with a new poll of voters in three key swing states—Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The headline is that Romney slightly leads Obama in Florida and Ohio, whereas Obama is winning Pennsylvania. But the poll also asked voters if they wanted the Supreme Court to overturn Obamacare, and in all three states, voters said “yes.”

The survey straightforwardly asked: “The Supreme Court has heard a challenge to the health care law. Do you want the Supreme Court to uphold the health care law or to overturn it?”

In Pennsylvania, where Obama leads Romney by eight points, 46 percent of voters said that the Supreme Court should strike down the law, compared to 43 percent who did not. In Florida and Ohio, a majority of voters favored a SCOTUS strike-down: by a 51-38 margin in Florida, and a 51-37 one in Ohio. The poll appears to have sampled Democrats and Republicans in representative proportions.

What’s interesting about these results is that they are based on the Supreme Court overturning the entirety of the law, and not merely its extremely unpopular individual mandate. (h/t Jim Geraghty.)

The poll, to put it mildly, adds to the inaccuracy of President Obama’s assertion that it would be “unprecedented” for the High Court to strike down the Affordable Care Act because a “strong majority” of Congress supported the law. It wasn’t, in fact, a “strong majority”—the law passed by one vote in the Senate and a handful in the House—but, insofar as Obama is citing these majorities to suggest that the law has popular support, whereas unelected judges do not, he’s clearly wrong.

And let’s not forget that the Obama administration has been happy to endorse Constitutional challenges to laws passed by truly strong majorities, like the Defense of Marriage Act, that the President disagrees with.

Though both sides are capable of believing that “constitutionality” equals policies they favor, many progressives have an explicit disdain for a fusty, centuries-old document that, in their minds, has no special claim on how government should be structured today.

This renders comical the portentous pronouncements of liberal editorialists who threaten that the Court’s legitimacy is at stake if it strikes down the law. The New Republic has published a steady stream of articles of this type, most recently an April 20 editorial screaming that such action would be “devastating” for the “Supreme Court’s legitimacy” and have “major implications for how Americans view the Supreme Court.”

The fact is that nearly every judge, on both sides of the case, has agreed that Obamacare’s individual mandate grants unprecedented powers to the federal government. Even President Obama, the Constitutional scholar, expressed reservations about the mandate as his team began formulating its health-reform plan. Paul Starr has, in TNR’s own pages, explained why the mandate was a gross “miscalculation” by the administration.

And, contrary to the magazine’s threats, it’s clear from opinion polls that the American people, on the whole, wouldn’t be particularly troubled if the Court struck down the law. Insofar as those attacking the Court’s “legitimacy” are doing so in order to intimidate Justice Kennedy into seeing things their way, neither the law nor the facts are on their side.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Hi, I’m a LEFTWING LIBERAL, FUNDAMENTALIST FREE TRADER, HSA-EVANGELIST, and most importantly I have a health Insurance policty from ObamaCare’s pre-existing conditions plan in Michigan(HIPMichigan.org). I really can’t stand the hypocrisy of GOP on healthcare reform. Yes, DEMs all sabotaged GWB’s attempt a healthcare reform which would’ve granted a refundable tax credit to all Americans. However, this proposal has been re-packaged by other GOPs(and DEMs) several times now, and each time has been met with reactions from GOPs that range from at best lukewarm support to outright HATRED. John McCain proposed pretty much the same thing during the 2008 campaign, but eliminated the employer tax deduction altogether, and has never spoke of it againt that’s how much he thought of it. Then the bi-partisan Wyden-Bennett pretty much did the same thing. The only support from GOPs was met with hostility and then the GOPs were forced to retract their support(Lindsay Graham). Then Bob Bennet was primaried by the tea party & defeated. Lastly the new Paul Ryan has received a media blackout and no GOP support, and for good reason. These refundable tax credits add to what is now conservatives #1 outrage right now: the fact that 49%(or whatever the number is) of Americans get more refundable tax credits(like the Ronald Reagan Earned Income Tax Credit) than they pay. Now Paul Ryan is proposing to add another refundable credit which will surely take that 49% to 60%. Good luck getting the Tea Party to support that. Beyond the issue of the tax credit, GWB’s proposal did little to reassure individuals with pre-existing conditions could obtain coverage. Yes, it did allow some form of “banding together”(Luntz focus group tested line fors ure, along with Romney’s “crafting” line he loves) or joining associations. The only problem was there was no guarantee or mandate that associations must accept all individuals who applied, just that they could. Plus, even thought people like me are highly satisfied with them, the ObamaCare Pre-Existing Conditions plans have been roundly critized as failures by the GOP. High-risk pools like Obama’s have been a centerpiece of GOP health-reform policy thinking for years now, yet they have given no specifics for how his are somehow different, and you haven’t either. Lastly, GOPs can’t seem to make up their minds on whether employers dropping insurance is a good thing or a bad thing. When reports like today’s come out that the full implementation of ObamaCare will result in huge savings for employers if they drop insurance, GOPs cynically pile on and use it to bash Obama. However, Paul Ryan’s plan would GUARANTEE that 100% of employers would drop their health insurance since they would lose the employer tax deduction. I personally, have no confusion. I want health insurance to no longer be something you buy from your employer. I greet reports like today’s as GOOD NEWS. EMPLOYERS ARE DROPPING THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE. Does that mean ObamaCare will cost more, perhaps, but RyanCare will then cost EVEN MORE since 100% of employers will drop their insurance 100% GUARANTEED.

Yes, I know this wasn’t what your blogpost was about today. I was really responding to a post on Monday or something. Either way, I wanted to get it off my chest. BTW: I’m a 38 year old white male 6ft 0inches tall, about 165lbs with a cholesterol level under 150. I was rejected in the last 6 months by 6 different for-profit health insurance companies for HSA High-Deductible plans that mandated NOTHING until until the deductibles were met(If you are a woman, no, not even contraception was covered until the deductitlble, happy?). They had deductibles ranging from $1500 to $10,000(is that catastrophic enough for you?). I do have a pre-existing condition. I have a shunt for hydrocephalus. I’ve had 5 surgeries in my lifetime, which well below average for his condition, but none since 2001.

The interesting thing to me is that when you educate the respondents about what “repeal” or outright “overturning” the law first actually means, the picture comes out completely different. Of course folks want to end health insurance underwriting and they want to ensure access to quality health insurance. People just don’t like the mandate and the “ObamaCare” boogeyman as described by the right. But on the merits of the law, the public is in favor of almost all of it.

If people could be made to understand that the mandate would actually require a change in behavior of a VERY SMALL portion of the populace the picture would change further. But the Republicans have the easier task here and are better at lying in general than the left (lack of integrity helps on that score).

“It wasn’t, in fact, a “strong majority”—the law passed by one vote in the Senate and a handful in the House”

This is clearly untrue, Avik. The Affordable Care Act passed with a SUPERMAJORITY in the Senate and better than a majority in the House. Only Democrats, but of course no Republican votes were ever really on the table.

To quote Wikipedia, “PPACA passed the Senate on December 24, 2009, by a vote of 60–39.” Let’s see… 60-39 = 21, not 1. Later (much later!) the act passed the House on “March 21, 2010, by a vote of 219–212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against the bill.”

Perhaps you are confusing the PPACA with another act passed shortly after the ACA via budget reconcilation which did student loan reform and made some minor tweaks?

As to the opinion poll… well, voters are confused, and fact challenged folks on the right like yourself in this instance confused them.

The bill only needed 60 votes for passage, so the number differential is irreverent but Mr. Roy may be referring to the fact that without Ben Nelson’s sudden change of heart(filibuster to support) the bill would still be 1 vote shy of overcoming the Republican filibuster of it.

I’m so disappointed in this “reporting”. Look, I know this is a blog, but it’s also backed by Forbes, a reputable publisher and information source.

Mr. Roy’s suggestion that one vague poll question administered in three states “adds to the inaccuracy of President Obama’s assertion that it would be ‘unprecedented’ for the High Court to strike down the Affordable Care Act because a ‘strong majority’ of Congress supported the law” is runaway journalism at its very worst.

First, I take issue with Mr. Roy’s portrayal of the facts of ACA’s passage. As another commentor posted, the ACA was strongly supported in Congress, as evidenced by the vote proportions cited. However, passing the final law was a complicated process using budget reconciliation procedures that have generated their own criticism. Mr. Roy, Forbes, and readers would be best served if the author first learned and subsequently explained the process used to pass the law before disparaging Mr. Obama’s own one-sided portrayal.

Second, Mr. Roy’s assertion that a public opinion poll lends any credence – one way or another – to a single, 2-year old Congressional vote is ridiculous. The American public is woefully uneducated regarding the realities of the ACA – not to mention the complexities of constitutional law – and a poll asking them what they’d like the court to do is entirely irrelevant. I find Mr. Roy’s statement that “many progressives have an explicit disdain for a fusty, centuries-old document that, in their minds, has no special claim on how government should be structured today” illustrates this point beautifully. Progressives’ supposed “explicit disdain” for the Constitution’s role in modern society is equally ludicrous as conservatives’ (and Mr. Roy’s) belief that public opinion – as illustrated in this single poll question – should dictate the force of the Constitution’s law, as interpreted by our Supreme Court.

Third, Mr. Roy would benefit from not only educating himself about Mr. Obama’s “‘unprecedented’ incident” and subsequent clarifications of what he meant, but also about the Supreme Court precedent Mr. Roy so boldly weaves into his own waxings on public opinion. The reality is that while the individual mandate may, as Chief Justice Roberts stated, “change the relationship between the individual and the state,” that doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional. In fact, Supreme Court precedent – since the 1800s when the Court allowed for the creation of a national bank – provides very solid ground for vast expansions of federal power. This political philosophy is neither liberal nor conservative (by today’s standards), but rather served to contrast our federal form of government with that in place during the Articles of Confederation. In fact, since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has only struck down two cases on the grounds that the federal government exceeded its power under the interstate commerce clause (the primary issue associated with the individual mandate). In both of those cases, the Court found that the “thing” being regulated – guns near schools in one and medical marijuana in the other – had too little to do with interstate commerce for the feds to be involved. However, that isn’t a problem with the individual mandate. The mandate is a key component of regulating the systems by which we – across the country – collectively pay for healthcare.

Finally, instead of spending time writing about the fallacies I’ve discussed above, may I recommend Mr. Roy take the advice of another commentor and contribute to the public dialogue of why people think they do not like the law and how they would like to change it. My suspicion – as a policy analyst and attorney – is that if the ACA is overturned in its entirety, the repercussions will reverberate far beyond what any individual who responded to the Quinnipiac Poll ever imagined. Not only will it dramatically impact their ability to get health insurance coverage and healthcare, but – depending on precisely how the case is decided and what other Court decisions are overturned to get there – it may also fundamentally reorient the positions of the federal government and state governments to one another (and not in a good way).

So, my warning to pollsters, the public, and politicos: be careful what you wish for – you just might get it.